The myth of neutrality in Thai politics

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
The myth of neutrality in Thai politics
The Nation

The government has embarked on another empty quest for an impartial third party to mediate the conflict

BANGKOK: -- Thai citizens can be forgiven for feeling sceptical at the proposal from Constitution Drafting Committee chief Borwornsak Uwanno that a national reconciliation committee be set up to resolve ongoing political disputes.

Borwornsak said the committee would be authorised to propose pardons for people involved in political conflict, though he does not know who would want amnesty.

It seems that both the CDC and Thais in general are still a long way from consensus on the nature of the conflict. Few people understand that it stems from differences between the two major parties, the Pheu Thai and the Democrats. Some insist that the war is between the red-shirt United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) and the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC). Many wonder if the yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy is still alive and whether it might activate more conflict.

Some see the actions of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra as the root cause of the conflict, while others blame his younger sister and successor, Yingluck Shinawatra, for all the Kingdom's problems.

Meanwhile and more pertinently, there is talk of a conflict between the urban elite and the rural poor. Certain academics trace the seed of the trouble to social inequality, explaining that a Bangkok establishment controls the majority of the wealth and power and refuses to share it more evenly with disadvantaged citizens. Intellectuals suggest that the dispute between reds and yellows is only the tip of an iceberg that goes much deeper.

Many Thais see the role of the military in politics as problematic. Some reckon the Army staged the coup in order to end the violent stand-off between the PDRC and the Pheu Thai-led government under Yingluck. Others, however, claim the military tagged along with the PDRC and the Democrats in order to seize power for the Bangkok establishment. Most foreign observers have identified the military as part of the problem, not the solution.

Major international powers regard the May 22 coup as a violation of democracy rather than as a solution to political conflict. They have criticised the action, suspended assistance and curtailed relations, while calling on the junta to restore democracy quickly.

Meanwhile the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) has failed to deliver a clear picture of the conflict. The junta has repeatedly claimed it is a neutral in mediating the conflict. But outside observers have witnessed its cabinet, reform council and legislative body behave like "winners", making rules to control and punish the "losers".

Last year CDC chief Borwornsak and other members of the junta's government joined the PDRC whistleblower movement and called for military intervention to topple Yingluck's government.

Now he is advocating the launch of a mechanism to promote national reconciliation, including a neutral middleman to resolve conflicts between warring political factions.

Who might be chosen for the role of middleman? We can likely rule out Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, on grounds that he lacks the required neutrality. The same goes for any member of the armed forces.

Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/The-myth-of-neutrality-in-Thai-politics-30254248.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-17

[lewy67]

Well made points rarely seen in such a yellow rag:

Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute.

The democratic solution to conflict is a free and fair election where the people choose who governs. But unfortunately that doesn't fit into the narrative of the elite minority who hold all the aces guns.

[lildragon]

Wow even The yellowest rag in town is beginning to ask questions. Tick tock general, the country is waiting.

[oneday]

A very well written, spot on article.

[TheDiva]

OK, Who are you and what have you done with The Nation newspaper?

[toybits]

'Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute."

AMEN! Nothing more to say here.

[robblok]

'Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute."

AMEN! Nothing more to say here.

Correct and whoever is in power will always use it to go after his enemies. So we can only hope that whoever we support gets into power. No matter what way as this conflict will never end.

So far my side is neutering the PTP and with some luck puts them out of the game for a long time. I have seen that both sides go after each-other.. both sides want full control and both sides use means that are not legal. I just support the side that I think is least bad of them.

[rametindallas]

It seems that both the CDC and Thais in general are still a long way from consensus on the nature of the conflict. Few people understand that it stems from differences between the two major parties, the Pheu Thai and the Democrats

This whole article is based on a false premise. The true root of political disagreement is that one side likes the current form of government which is a Constitutional Monarchy and the other side wants a Republic with a President at its head. For a disagreement such as this, there is no middle ground because the two forms of government are incompatible and cannot be blended. Thaksin and his bought-and-paid-for UDD (headed by ex Communists who also hate the Monarchy) represent the group that wants to end the Monarchy in Thailand, create a new Republic and have Thaksin as President-for-Life. The Bangkok elite, who have benefited from the current form of government, want to keep things as they were before Thaksin came along.

I'm not saying, in this post, which is better for Thailand as I am not a Thai citizen and it is not my place. I only point out the root cause of all the strife and political discord that is simmering just below the surface. In either form of government, there will be winners and losers; it's just that they won't be the same people. The US is a Republic with a President and the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliament and Prime Minister. When either form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens benefit. When neither form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens suffer. If either government tried to change types/form of government, it would lead to strife, civil war, and possibly partition or succession.

[AGareth2]

reconcilliation starts with forgiveness

[manchesterlalala]

'Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute."

AMEN! Nothing more to say here.

Correct and whoever is in power will always use it to go after his enemies. So we can only hope that whoever we support gets into power. No matter what way as this conflict will never end.

So far my side is neutering the PTP and with some luck puts them out of the game for a long time. I have seen that both sides go after each-other.. both sides want full control and both sides use means that are not legal. I just support the side that I think is least bad of them.

Thank you for being so disarmingly honest about how TVNF commenters see this conflict.

It really is frustratingly reductive, and highly indicative of how people, once having chosen a corner to root for, will not allow their views to be influenced by rational argument.

[phoenixdoglover]

Good article.

Thai concepts about democracy and conflict are perplexing to westerners.

The current leaders should go visit the British Parliament and the US Congress. Two functioning, representative democracies, with plenty of ongoing conflict.

Democratic systems were born our of conflict. Conflict is inherent to human nature and democratic systems of government. The idea of a 3rd party that "resolves" conflict is a dream.

As for the Judiciary, that is not their role. The role of the courts is to correctly and consistently interpret The Law, and The Constitution.

<snip>

Edited February 17, 2015 by Jai Dee
Reference to Thai monarchy removed

[robblok]

'Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute."

AMEN! Nothing more to say here.

Correct and whoever is in power will always use it to go after his enemies. So we can only hope that whoever we support gets into power. No matter what way as this conflict will never end.

So far my side is neutering the PTP and with some luck puts them out of the game for a long time. I have seen that both sides go after each-other.. both sides want full control and both sides use means that are not legal. I just support the side that I think is least bad of them.

Thank you for being so disarmingly honest about how TVNF commenters see this conflict.

It really is frustratingly reductive, and highly indicative of how people, once having chosen a corner to root for, will not allow their views to be influenced by rational argument.

Fact is there is no prefect side here, I don't agree with everything the current government does but I see them as a big improvement over the last. Most foreigners feel the same the general consensus is that foreigners dislike / hate the shins.

What i see as a rational argument won't be seen as rational by the other side and vice versa. That is the nature of things if it was all that easy there would be nor problem.

[Tatsujin]

It seems that both the CDC and Thais in general are still a long way from consensus on the nature of the conflict. Few people understand that it stems from differences between the two major parties, the Pheu Thai and the Democrats

This whole article is based on a false premise. The true root of political disagreement is that one side likes the current form of government which is a Constitutional Monarchy and the other side wants a Republic with a President at its head. For a disagreement such as this, there is no middle ground because the two forms of government are incompatible and cannot be blended. Thaksin and his bought-and-paid-for UDD (headed by ex Communists who also hate the Monarchy) represent the group that wants to end the Monarchy in Thailand, create a new Republic and have Thaksin as President-for-Life. The Bangkok elite, who have benefited from the current form of government, want to keep things as they were before Thaksin came along.

I'm not saying, in this post, which is better for Thailand as I am not a Thai citizen and it is not my place. I only point out the root cause of all the strife and political discord that is simmering just below the surface. In either form of government, there will be winners and losers; it's just that they won't be the same people. The US is a Republic with a President and the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliament and Prime Minister. When either form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens benefit. When neither form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens suffer. If either government tried to change types/form of government, it would lead to strife, civil war, and possibly partition or succession.

And this cuts to the heart of the matter:

"one side likes the current form of government which is a Constitutional Monarchy and the other side wants a Republic with a President at its head"

Whether the PT/UDD supporters like it, agree with it, or don't even know about it, that's exactly where Thaksin was headed.

[sawadee1947]

..open words. Surprising but true. A solution is far away.

[TheDiva]

It seems that both the CDC and Thais in general are still a long way from consensus on the nature of the conflict. Few people understand that it stems from differences between the two major parties, the Pheu Thai and the Democrats

This whole article is based on a false premise. The true root of political disagreement is that one side likes the current form of government which is a Constitutional Monarchy and the other side wants a Republic with a President at its head. For a disagreement such as this, there is no middle ground because the two forms of government are incompatible and cannot be blended. Thaksin and his bought-and-paid-for UDD (headed by ex Communists who also hate the Monarchy) represent the group that wants to end the Monarchy in Thailand, create a new Republic and have Thaksin as President-for-Life. The Bangkok elite, who have benefited from the current form of government, want to keep things as they were before Thaksin came along.

I'm not saying, in this post, which is better for Thailand as I am not a Thai citizen and it is not my place. I only point out the root cause of all the strife and political discord that is simmering just below the surface. In either form of government, there will be winners and losers; it's just that they won't be the same people. The US is a Republic with a President and the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliament and Prime Minister. When either form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens benefit. When neither form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens suffer. If either government tried to change types/form of government, it would lead to strife, civil war, and possibly partition or succession.

And this cuts to the heart of the matter:

"one side likes the current form of government which is a Constitutional Monarchy and the other side wants a Republic with a President at its head"

Whether the PT/UDD supporters like it, agree with it, or don't even know about it, that's exactly where Thaksin was headed.

Oh really? Please elaborate on your allegation. Should be good for a giggle.

[ExPratt]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Wow even The yellowest rag in town is beginning to ask questions. Tick tock general, the country is waiting.

Yep they've definitely grown a pair. Decent article I would say detailing what many think of the coup , its not the rights and wrongs of what went before, but a Military takeover in itself is abhorrent to many.

[Tatsujin]

It seems that both the CDC and Thais in general are still a long way from consensus on the nature of the conflict. Few people understand that it stems from differences between the two major parties, the Pheu Thai and the Democrats

This whole article is based on a false premise. The true root of political disagreement is that one side likes the current form of government which is a Constitutional Monarchy and the other side wants a Republic with a President at its head. For a disagreement such as this, there is no middle ground because the two forms of government are incompatible and cannot be blended. Thaksin and his bought-and-paid-for UDD (headed by ex Communists who also hate the Monarchy) represent the group that wants to end the Monarchy in Thailand, create a new Republic and have Thaksin as President-for-Life. The Bangkok elite, who have benefited from the current form of government, want to keep things as they were before Thaksin came along.

I'm not saying, in this post, which is better for Thailand as I am not a Thai citizen and it is not my place. I only point out the root cause of all the strife and political discord that is simmering just below the surface. In either form of government, there will be winners and losers; it's just that they won't be the same people. The US is a Republic with a President and the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliament and Prime Minister. When either form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens benefit. When neither form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens suffer. If either government tried to change types/form of government, it would lead to strife, civil war, and possibly partition or succession.

And this cuts to the heart of the matter:

"one side likes the current form of government which is a Constitutional Monarchy and the other side wants a Republic with a President at its head"

Whether the PT/UDD supporters like it, agree with it, or don't even know about it, that's exactly where Thaksin was headed.

Oh really? Please elaborate on your allegation. Should be good for a giggle.

No need for me to elaborate here, and I can't anyway, but if you Google, you'll find some interesting stuff online regarding Thaksin and the Monarchy. Or you could just ask a Thai.

EDIT: Try this for a different slant on some things that have occurred over the past decade or so: http://auswathai-sawasdee.blogspot.com/2009/07/thailand-bangkok-charges-of-crimes.html, I can't find the Thai version.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Tatsujin

[rametindallas]

It seems that both the CDC and Thais in general are still a long way from consensus on the nature of the conflict. Few people understand that it stems from differences between the two major parties, the Pheu Thai and the Democrats

This whole article is based on a false premise. The true root of political disagreement is that one side likes the current form of government which is a Constitutional Monarchy and the other side wants a Republic with a President at its head. For a disagreement such as this, there is no middle ground because the two forms of government are incompatible and cannot be blended. Thaksin and his bought-and-paid-for UDD (headed by ex Communists who also hate the Monarchy) represent the group that wants to end the Monarchy in Thailand, create a new Republic and have Thaksin as President-for-Life. The Bangkok elite, who have benefited from the current form of government, want to keep things as they were before Thaksin came along.

I'm not saying, in this post, which is better for Thailand as I am not a Thai citizen and it is not my place. I only point out the root cause of all the strife and political discord that is simmering just below the surface. In either form of government, there will be winners and losers; it's just that they won't be the same people. The US is a Republic with a President and the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliament and Prime Minister. When either form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens benefit. When neither form works, neither is better than the other and its citizens suffer. If either government tried to change types/form of government, it would lead to strife, civil war, and possibly partition or succession.

And this cuts to the heart of the matter:

"one side likes the current form of government which is a Constitutional Monarchy and the other side wants a Republic with a President at its head"

Whether the PT/UDD supporters like it, agree with it, or don't even know about it, that's exactly where Thaksin was headed.

Oh really? Please elaborate on your allegation. Should be good for a giggle.

No need for me to elaborate here, and I can't anyway, but if you Google, you'll find some interesting stuff online regarding Thaksin and the Monarchy. Or you could just ask a Thai.

EDIT: Try this for a different slant on some things that have occurred over the past decade or so: http://auswathai-sawasdee.blogspot.com/2009/07/thailand-bangkok-charges-of-crimes.html, I can't find the Thai version.

And this link has a more comprehensive list of of Thaksin's history of 'governance'.

Category Archives: The Thaksin Years

http://2bangkok.com/category/thai-politics/the-thaksin-years-2001-2006

articles from Human Rights Watch, etc.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

'Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute."

AMEN! Nothing more to say here.

Correct and whoever is in power will always use it to go after his enemies. So we can only hope that whoever we support gets into power. No matter what way as this conflict will never end.

So far my side is neutering the PTP and with some luck puts them out of the game for a long time. I have seen that both sides go after each-other.. both sides want full control and both sides use means that are not legal. I just support the side that I think is least bad of them.

" I just support the side that I think is least bad of them."

Would you support the government if it was elected by the side that you didn't support? Or would you agree that illegal means would be justified for regime change once again? That was the approach used by the Democrats and the PDRC, while the PTP attempted to work within the constitutional framework imposed on it.

In a democracy not everyone gets their way, sometimes even when they are the majority. Witness the Court's denial of the legality of the PTP amnesty bill. But all Thai People should be guaranteed their constitutional rights and liberties. When that is taken away, there is no good side and bad side. There is only a losing side.

[LivinLOS]

Fact is there is no prefect side here, I don't agree with everything the current government does but I see them as a big improvement over the last. Most foreigners feel the same the general consensus is that foreigners dislike / hate the shins.

I think a large part of that is most you speak to are jonny come latelys that have no idea how badly managed the country was before the Shins.. Hence they see the faults of the Shins in management as huge, without realizing the enormous good he brought to the country.. Leading them to support kings of corruption like Suthep whose been caught with his hands in the cookie jar so many times, even brought down the last decently elected (good it would seem) Democrat Lekpai government and hailing him as some kind of corruption campaigner.

They dont know the constant cycle of military involvement, collapsed governments, coups, no confidence, and corruption scandals that bogged the country down terribly for years, decades even.. They dont remember he was the first elected PM to ever go full term and pass it back to another election.. To ever win 2 in a row, to win by the largest majority in Thai history.. They dont remember he inherited the IMF debt that they said would take a generation to clear, and paid it back in what 6 or 7 ?? They simply see a few failed schemes and think thats failure, if they want to see failure just look at how the country was run before him, by a tiny clique, for a tiny clique and to hell with the rest..

Tacky simply was too successful, his power was starting to be enough to maybe reduce the military power and hence bring the military under civilian elected control, something the country badly needs if its ever to escape this cycle of unelected military folks negating the election process.. The handing out of largesse and infrastructure to the provinces was normally done through crumbs being dispensed and having 'named' parks and the like.. Tacky made that support policy not based on charity from a certain institution.. Of course that then undermines the institution..

Yes many farangs dont like the shins.. But many farangs are absolutely clueless about what the alternative to the Shins looked like.. The very idea that this is about cleaning up corruption is laughable, its about who gets access to the trough.

[Roadman]

'Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute."

AMEN! Nothing more to say here.

Correct and whoever is in power will always use it to go after his enemies. So we can only hope that whoever we support gets into power. No matter what way as this conflict will never end.

So far my side is neutering the PTP and with some luck puts them out of the game for a long time. I have seen that both sides go after each-other.. both sides want full control and both sides use means that are not legal. I just support the side that I think is least bad of them.

Why not choose a position on neither side where the judiciary, Attorney General, DSI, police etc. are actually free from political patronage.

Personally while I picked Thaksin for the scumbag he was early in his political career, it was the corrupt patronage environment that allowed him to prosper. None of the other thai political parties are any better. There has been the odd thai politician who has had high morals and values but when you are one among many corrupt they are a lost cause. I struggle to see any who are least bad politically. Certainly morally.

You actually play the same game as thai politicans do...your parliamentary opposition is a reflection of your own parties principles not your opposition to destroy. Seems the only way to stop them destroying each other and Thailand in their wake is to take their weapons (the judiciary, Police, AG, DSI etc) away from them for as the CDC is proposing for a minimum of five years.

As for the article after a lot of navel gazing over what the stem of the conflict is and still missing its full patronage core (top marks to rametindallas for being to ID it), it does what very few Nation writers do including the great mass of posters on this board who only criticise... it offers a solution in that the quest of reconciliation is a waste of space. Dead correct. The PM has it right...if you have done the crime then sort your garbage out at the criminal court and the thai prisons. Even the Reds Udon criminal thug Khwanchai is still squealing their Red mantra garbage today that they and their Thaksin crims are being victimised...seriously in any democratic country the lot of them including the Shinawtra's would be doing prison time. Reconciliation...there is nothing to reconcile as they still think they are above the law and they have done no wrong.

[robblok]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

'Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute."

AMEN! Nothing more to say here.

Correct and whoever is in power will always use it to go after his enemies. So we can only hope that whoever we support gets into power. No matter what way as this conflict will never end.

So far my side is neutering the PTP and with some luck puts them out of the game for a long time. I have seen that both sides go after each-other.. both sides want full control and both sides use means that are not legal. I just support the side that I think is least bad of them.

" I just support the side that I think is least bad of them."

Would you support the government if it was elected by the side that you didn't support? Or would you agree that illegal means would be justified for regime change once again? That was the approach used by the Democrats and the PDRC, while the PTP attempted to work within the constitutional framework imposed on it.

In a democracy not everyone gets their way, sometimes even when they are the majority. Witness the Court's denial of the legality of the PTP amnesty bill. But all Thai People should be guaranteed their constitutional rights and liberties. When that is taken away, there is no good side and bad side. There is only a losing side.

I would support getting rid of them again and again. I don't mind coups at all.

That is until things change here and we got a real democracy. If you look at the fake G2G deals and how anyone with proof was threatened and how it took a coup to get to the bottom of it. That just shows that democracy is not working here. Whoever is in power only goes after its opponents and forgets about their own crimes. As long as it is like this then I prefer my side to be in power at all cost because the other side isn't democratic either.

You keep dreaming that Thailand is a democracy.. its not.. those who are in power turn it automatically into a dictatorship.

- If Thailand was an democracy then senators voting for others would be punished and their lies not accepted

- If Thailand was a democracy they would not have send the opposition home and then have a vote.

- IF Thailand was a democracy the red terrorist would have been caught by the police

- If Thailand was a democracy The rice scam would have been investigated by someone else as the army and shown to be corrupt. But during the rule of the PTP no such checks were done and all was ok

- If Thailand was a democracy a criminal could not lead the government by proxy

So I conclude there is no democracy.. and in that case i prefer my side that I don't 100% agree with to be in power.

[robblok]

'Meanwhile members of the judiciary have been taking sides for a long time, so they would seem unsuitable as neutrals whose decisions could be trusted by both sides.

In reality, it's not worth wasting time on this quest. Amid our longstanding polarised conflict, there is no non-partisan figure left that might help resolve the dispute."

AMEN! Nothing more to say here.

Correct and whoever is in power will always use it to go after his enemies. So we can only hope that whoever we support gets into power. No matter what way as this conflict will never end.

So far my side is neutering the PTP and with some luck puts them out of the game for a long time. I have seen that both sides go after each-other.. both sides want full control and both sides use means that are not legal. I just support the side that I think is least bad of them.

Why not choose a position on neither side where the judiciary, Attorney General, DSI, police etc. are actually free from political patronage.

Personally while I picked Thaksin for the scumbag he was early in his political career, it was the corrupt patronage environment that allowed him to prosper. None of the other thai political parties are any better. There has been the odd thai politician who has had high morals and values but when you are one among many corrupt they are a lost cause. I struggle to see any who are least bad politically. Certainly morally.

You actually play the same game as thai politicans do...your parliamentary opposition is a reflection of your own parties principles not your opposition to destroy. Seems the only way to stop them destroying each other and Thailand in their wake is to take their weapons (the judiciary, Police, AG, DSI etc) away from them for as the CDC is proposing for a minimum of five years.

As for the article after a lot of navel gazing over what the stem of the conflict is and still missing its full patronage core (top marks to rametindallas for being to ID it), it does what very few Nation writers do including the great mass of posters on this board who only criticise... it offers a solution in that the quest of reconciliation is a waste of space. Dead correct. The PM has it right...if you have done the crime then sort your garbage out at the criminal court and the thai prisons. Even the Reds Udon criminal thug Khwanchai is still squealing their Red mantra garbage today that they and their Thaksin crims are being victimised...seriously in any democratic country the lot of them including the Shinawtra's would be doing prison time. Reconciliation...there is nothing to reconcile as they still think they are above the law and they have done no wrong.

The thing is the option you are talking about is not there.. at the moment there are 2 teams and neither is perfect. I just take the least worse. The moment a third option arises I will gladly support it.